+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Trails (/showthread.php?tid=378)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
RE: Trails - tomh009 - 09-02-2018
(09-02-2018, 09:21 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: The crossing will essentially be exactly how it is now, but at a slightly different angle:
Maybe almost exactly. I do believe the (improved) rest areas, the warning plates and the bollards are new to this crossing.
RE: Trails - Canard - 09-02-2018
What are the “problems” that they are recreating?
RE: Trails - Pheidippides - 09-02-2018
(09-02-2018, 05:24 PM)Canard Wrote: What are the “problems” that they are recreating?
The pedestrian island that is too small to accommodate the volume, and types, of users.
The lack of signals.
The lack road markings of any sort to warn Queen St S users of the crossing (do you have to dismount here to cross legally?).
(I think there are signs along Queen warning of the crossing, but I think, at least east-bound, they are literally right at the crossing and give no warning).
Just this weekend I saw a cargo bike unable to fit on the current island, and I regularly see the crossing full with people trying to cross. Back when I was pulling my bike trailer I would avoid this crossing because it was too dangerous. Frequently a motorist would stop for me on one side and then get angry that I wouldn't venture across to the island because I would not fit.
I tried out the Iron Horse Trails new lights tonight; they were fantastic. It seemed like many more people on the trail than usual for that level of darkness. Also, it hardly seemed like there was any light spillage into the neighbouring lots like there seems to be along the Spurline; just light along the trail and then blackness beyond. Maybe because the vegetation is fuller and bigger than along the Spurline? Did they use shorter light standards on the IHT than the Spur?
RE: Trails - Canard - 09-03-2018
But the new island on Weber is tiny too. Sometimes there just isn’t room to make it larger.
RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 09-03-2018
(09-03-2018, 07:49 AM)Canard Wrote: But the new island on Weber is tiny too. Sometimes there just isn’t room to make it larger.
If there is space for four lanes there is space for a safe refuge in the middle. It’s just a matter of whether safety matters for active transportation.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 09-03-2018
(09-03-2018, 07:49 AM)Canard Wrote: But the new island on Weber is tiny too. Sometimes there just isn’t room to make it larger.
The one on Weber is so ridiculous and the engineer responsible should be let go (or generously offered additional training) . There is plenty of space to widen it; ignoring the excessively wide lanes, the wide Boulevard on both sides, the road actually narrows in approach to it .
This kind of thing drives me up the wall. I as a citizen shouldn't have to be watching paid trained engineers to make sure they design our infrastructure competently. It isn't my job, but somehow we cannot seem to figure this shit out.
RE: Trails - tomh009 - 09-03-2018
(09-02-2018, 11:43 PM)Pheidippides Wrote:(09-02-2018, 05:24 PM)Canard Wrote: What are the “problems” that they are recreating?
The pedestrian island that is too small to accommodate the volume, and types, of users. (…)
Just this weekend I saw a cargo bike unable to fit on the current island, and I regularly see the crossing full with people trying to cross. Back when I was pulling my bike trailer I would avoid this crossing because it was too dangerous. Frequently a motorist would stop for me on one side and then get angry that I wouldn't venture across to the island because I would not fit.
A bicycle with a trailer can be close to 3m long. Including some safety margin, that would require an island that's probable 3.5-4m wide. NACTO recommends 8-10' (2.4-3m wide), still quite narrow for a trailer-equipped bike.
I expect that the islands are not designed for bikes with trailers but, rather, pedestrians and trailer-less bicycles. Whether they should be designed for trailers is a valid point of discussion, but the reality is that trailers are used by a very small minority of bicycle users. (Outside North America, trailers are quite rare, people generally use child seats instead.) And designing for 100% of potential users is always more expensive than designing for 95%.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 09-03-2018
(09-03-2018, 03:35 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(09-02-2018, 11:43 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: The pedestrian island that is too small to accommodate the volume, and types, of users. (…)
Just this weekend I saw a cargo bike unable to fit on the current island, and I regularly see the crossing full with people trying to cross. Back when I was pulling my bike trailer I would avoid this crossing because it was too dangerous. Frequently a motorist would stop for me on one side and then get angry that I wouldn't venture across to the island because I would not fit.
A bicycle with a trailer can be close to 3m long. Including some safety margin, that would require an island that's probable 3.5-4m wide. NACTO recommends 8-10' (2.4-3m wide), still quite narrow for a trailer-equipped bike.
I expect that the islands are not designed for bikes with trailers but, rather, pedestrians and trailer-less bicycles. Whether they should be designed for trailers is a valid point of discussion, but the reality is that trailers are used by a very small minority of bicycle users. (Outside North America, trailers are quite rare, people generally use child seats instead.) And designing for 100% of potential users is always more expensive than designing for 95%.
The crossing at Weber St is too narrow for a bicycle to sit comfortably, and given how frequently the sign is driven over drivers seem to not see it either. Even as a pedestrian there isn't enough room to comfortably stand on the platform with another ped in front.
I think the Weber platform is supposed to be 2.4 meters but I'd have to get a measuring tape to believe it. If it is, the 2.4 minimum is too small.
Keep in mind there are other advantages to larger platforms than simply accommodating trailers, you allow multiple users at the same time which would allowed greater capacity and also say, a parent and child. The island could be longer as well.
Of course enabling people to bike with children whether along side or in a trailer is one of the explicit goals, so it's hardly a 1% issue. Infrastructure should be for everyone.
RE: Trails - Canard - 09-03-2018
I don’t like the narrowness of the Weber island, but I’m ecstatic they put something in. It was terrifying before, and now I can actually cross.
Given the choice between small or nothing, I’ll take small.
It is not possible or reasonable in every scenario to “just widen everything” and suddenly start ripping up shit and moving roads.
RE: Trails - Canard - 09-03-2018
Like, seriously guys, what are you expecting they do at Queen? Exactly how do you imagine this could be rectified, short of a Level X crossing with a button and lights? There is physically no room for anything to be made wider.
RE: Trails - tomh009 - 09-03-2018
(09-03-2018, 06:14 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(09-03-2018, 03:35 PM)tomh009 Wrote: A bicycle with a trailer can be close to 3m long. Including some safety margin, that would require an island that's probable 3.5-4m wide. NACTO recommends 8-10' (2.4-3m wide), still quite narrow for a trailer-equipped bike.
The crossing at Weber St is too narrow for a bicycle to sit comfortably, and given how frequently the sign is driven over drivers seem to not see it either. Even as a pedestrian there isn't enough room to comfortably stand on the platform with another ped in front.
I think the Weber platform is supposed to be 2.4 meters but I'd have to get a measuring tape to believe it. If it is, the 2.4 minimum is too small.
A "normal" bicycle (not a trailer, tandem or a recumbent) is about 1.7m long so 2.4m should easily accommodate that. Or a small crowd of pedestrians standing there.
RE: Trails - Canard - 09-03-2018
I have "normal" bicycles and I can confirm the Weber island is not long enough to accommodate my bicycle perpendicular to the flow of traffic; I have to angle it. It is nowhere near 2.4 m.
RE: Trails - tomh009 - 09-03-2018
That would be a problem, yes.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 09-03-2018
For Queen, I don't find it particularly narrow. But I can understand how someone with a child in a trailer or tagalong or even just on their own bike with them might find it a problem.
There is space to widen it more. There is a painted edge line about half a meter from the curb on both sides so there is at least that much space. We just have to decide if accommodating people with a child trailer is more important than the speed of snowplows.
The Weber crossing is a whole other beast. There is plenty of room to make it wider and the fact that it is so terribly under sized makes me unwilling to trust engineers. So when they come and say this is what we are doing on Queen or suggest that it cannot be widened I am less likely to take their word for it.
RE: Trails - Canard - 09-04-2018
Queen: Do you know for a fact that a snowplough could fit through a narrower lane with curbs on both sides?
Weber: Please draw a diagram explaining how you think it could have been made wider without moving the outside lanes, encroaching nearby properties.